Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Also, it won't actually work unless the server has replication
> configured (wal_level!=minimal, max_wal_senders>0, and possibly some
> setting for wal_keep_segments), which has been the main point of the
> naming discussion thus far. Now, you know what would be REALLY cool?
> Making this work without any special advance configuration. Like if
> we somehow figured out a way to make max_wal_senders unnecessary, and
> a way to change wal_level without bouncing the server, so that we
> could temporarily boost the WAL level from minimal to archive if
> someone's running a backup.
Not using max_wal_senders we're on our way, you "just" have to use the
external walreceiver that Magnus the code for already. WAL level, I
don't know that we have that already, but a big part of what this base
backup tool is useful for is preparing a standby… so certainly you want
to change that setup there.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
